Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

A Schism of Isms Compared by their Shit: Plus the Atheism in Nihilism

Below you'll find some religious and philosophical Isms jokingly compared in relation to each other by their 'Shit'.

Some Religious Isms:
Taoism: Shit happens.
Buddhism: If Shit happens, it’s not really Shit.
Ecumenicism: Overlook all the different Shit
Islamism: If Shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
Protestantism: Shit happens when you don’t work hard enough.
Judaism: Why does this Shit always happen to us?
Hinduism: This Shit happened before.
Catholicism: Shit happens because you are bad.
Hare Krishna: Good Shit happens when you chant Rama shit..
TV Evangelism: Send us more Shit.
Jehovah’s Witness: Knock, knock, Witness some of our Shit.
Christian Science: Shit happens in your mind.
Rastafarianism: Let’s smoke this Shit!

Some Philosophical Isms:
Atheism: No Shit, Sherlock!
Agnosticism: Maybe Shit happens, maybe it doesn’t.
Existentialism: What is Shit anyway?
Hedonism: There’s nothing like dirty Shit.
Humanism: Human shit just doesn't stink
Nihilism: Eat Shit and Die.
Relativism: Shit to live & let live by
Stoicism: This Shit doesn’t bother me.
Syncretism: Mix all that shit up to get diarrhea.

An 'Ism', per the dictionary, is a belief, or system of beliefs accepted as authoritative by its members. Philosophy and doctrine both have the very same definition as Ism. I wouldn't say I accept any group's belief system as 'authorative', but society could combine a few Isms to represent my own 'life philosophy'. Most of the 'Shit' that really seems to 'jell', or agree with me personally into one big pile of shit matching a more mature life philosophy, stems from two primary 'Isms'.

One of these Isms, Atheism, professing 'No Shit', is a really a prequisite for a philosophy called Nihilism, or 'Eat [faith-based] Shit and Die'. After reading about more modern views of Nihilism at the end of the 20th century, I learned society could easily 'label' me a nihilist from being someone who is more 'radical' than an atheist. A common, but misleading and simplistic description of nihilism is the ‘belief in nothing’. Instead, a far more realistic modern description of Nihilism substitutes ‘faith’ for ‘belief,’ where faith is defined as the 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof.'

Nihilists generally believe 1. God does not exist; 2. Faith-based or religious morality is false and; 3. All faith-based social organizations, government and culture is so diseased that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake independent of any constructive plan or outcome. A nihilist in the simplistic sense, is one who rejects all faith-based or religious belief systems just as an atheist does, but is someone that seeks to destroy faith-based structures, regardless of the outcome. My own AKA identity here at RRS, Adnihilo in Latin means: to bring to nothing, annihilate, demolish.

Nihilism really has little to do with 'anarcho-hucksters' of any variety, no matter if of the socialist variety, or the anarcho-capitalist Randian version found in America's social darwinist, pseudo-libertarian movement. Anarcho-hucksters do not focus on denying fallacious belief systems, but do reject many of the same ‘isms’ and institutions stemming from the fraud of faith-based belief systems.

I firmly believe, now more than ever, that Nihilism is only ‘ism’ powerful enough to eradicate the myriad of incredibly destructive faith-based ‘isms’ in particularly monotheism. Like any Nihilist, I strongly believe conditions in both the middle eastern Islamic and the western Judeo-Christian social organizations and culture have become so diseased, that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake, independent of any constructive plan or outcome.

If you run a search on the net, you'll find a whole slew of primarily right winged Judeo-Christian NeoCon Zionists trying to redefine the meaning of nihilism to further their own faith based intolerance of other religions. In, and like the Oxy-Morons they are, Judeo-Christian NeoCons combine Islamic Nihilist or ‘Islamo-Nihilists’ to denounce their Islamic religious enemies. Some ‘progressives’, the left, liberals, or others at odds with Judeo-Christian NeoCons do the very same thing to a lesser degree by using Christian Nihilist or ‘Christo-Nihilists’.

This oxy-moronic misuse of the term nihilist in conjunction with religion really ticks me off! A Nihilist is the polar opposite, and could be considered the atheist version of today's fundamentalist from any religion. To put it another way, the nihilist is everyone’s infidel but another nihilist, and could be considered the antithesis of all religious fundamentalists. Since all monotheistic religions are based in total mythological lies, it is impossible for any adherent of any faith-based religion to be a Nihilist.

The monotheist's motivation for bigotry, hate and violence stems from their deep adherence to ‘religious morals’ and the religious doctrines they stem from, not from any lack of faith-based beliefs. Hence Islamo-Nihilist or Judeo-Christian-Nihilist is an absurd oxymoron perpetrated by religious morons. Personally I don’t buy into Nietzsche’s [considered by some to be an original nihilist] description of Christianity as a nihilistic religion, because he based this belief that Christianity's nihilism resulted from the 'death of God'. Nietzsche harbored this common belief of Deists from his time of a 'dead or absent God' primarily because Deists were too fearful of Christians to come of out of the closet to acknowledge a more atheist view in no SkyGod period, end of story. There is absolutely no proof a skygod ever existed. Therefore it’s impossible for something not proven to exist to die, much less be 'absent'.

So, my primary questions to other 'atheists' only on this RRS board, since not seeing much reference to nihilism here: Would you say your 'life philosophy' is more 'nihilistic' in regards to it's more simplistic philosophy as 'faith in nothing.'? Would you agree with the third and last primary doctrine of nihilism [of 3 listed above] that: 3. All faith-based social organizations, government and culture is so diseased that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake independent of any constructive plan or outcome. If so, as an atheist, since you would, by most any definition, be a full blown nihilist, do, or could you admit to being an adherent to this more 'radical' nihilist category of atheism? If not, why????

--------------------If anyone's interested, "Nihilism's Home Page: Exiting The Circus Of Values" is the premier site on the internet to learn more about Nihilism. It is where I learned way back in '98 when this site was first put on the net, that my own personal life philosophy strongly matched today's modern philosophy of Nihilism.

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

So, my primary questions to other 'atheists' only on this RRS board, since not seeing much reference to nihilism here: Would you say your 'life philosophy' is more 'nihilistic' in regards to it's more simplistic philosophy as 'faith in nothing.'? Would you agree with the third and last primary doctrine of nihilism [of 3 listed above] that: 3. All faith-based social organizations, government and culture is so diseased that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake independent of any constructive plan or outcome. If so, as an atheist, since you would, by most any definition, be a full blown nihilist, do, or could you admit to being an adherent to this more 'radical' nihilist category of atheism? If not, why????

True nihilism is that nothing can be known. The kind of nihilism you're talking about is a kind of 'popular' nihilism. I am neither. I reject philosophical nihilism via pragmatism: I want to know things, and it's better to try to know what can be known than to live in a nihilistic pit of nothingness; therefore, use what works.

I reject popular nihilism since it has no good philosophical basis and just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

Tottally irrelevent comment on my part, but the title of the thread sounds like a Dr. Sues line.

Ignore my sillyness and move on.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

True nihilism is that nothing can be known. The kind of nihilism you're talking about is a kind of 'popular' nihilism. I am neither. I reject philosophical nihilism via pragmatism: I want to know things, and it's better to try to know what can be known than to live in a nihilistic pit of nothingness; therefore, use what works.

The definition you'll find even in the dictionary [word web] of your 'True' Nihilist is 'Someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief'. A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'. A 'true' atheist would also have to agree with the first two primary doctrines of 3 in what you call 'popular nihilism' even to refer to themself as an atheist: 1. God does not exist; 2. Faith-based or religious morality is false. Apparently you're not an atheist, or at least a pragmatic one...

natural wrote:

I reject popular nihilism since it has no good philosophical basis and just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

You reject nihilism because 1. high school kiddies adopt anarcho-huckster ideals confusing it with nihilism for the sake of rebelling and 2. Because nihilism has no 'philosophical basis'??

Seems to be a rather 'shallow' opinion indicating you're not an atheist since the philosophical basis of nihilism - old and new, is the rejection of 'faith' and the moral values stemming from a belief in an imaginary skygod....

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

True nihilism is that nothing can be known. The kind of nihilism you're talking about is a kind of 'popular' nihilism. I am neither. I reject philosophical nihilism via pragmatism: I want to know things, and it's better to try to know what can be known than to live in a nihilistic pit of nothingness; therefore, use what works.

The definition you'll find even in the dictionary [word web] of your 'True' Nihilist is 'Someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief'.

Like I said, that's 'popular' nihilism. Dictionary.com has this:

dictionary.com wrote:

4. Philosophy.a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

Generally, you shouldn't trust general-use dictionaries for specialized definitions, but in this case, they have a special entry for philosophical nihilism. And as you can see, it is basically a denial of all knowledge claims.

Quote:

A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'.

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means. What is pragmatic about claiming that all knowledge is impossible?

Quote:

A 'true' atheist would also have to agree with the first two primary doctrines of 3 in what you call 'popular nihilism' even to refer to themself as an atheist: 1. God does not exist; 2. Faith-based or religious morality is false. Apparently you're not an atheist, or at least a pragmatic one...

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently and haven't discussed them much with 'true' atheists, pragmatists, or nihilists. An atheist does not need to agree that 'god does not exist', he merely needs to reject the positive claim that 'god does exist'. Nor does an atheist need to reject faith. Most do, of course, but it's not a pre-requisite.

Quote:

natural wrote:

I reject popular nihilism since it has no good philosophical basis and just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

You reject nihilism because 1. high school kiddies adopt anarcho-huckster ideals confusing it with nihilism for the sake of rebelling and 2. Because nihilism has no 'philosophical basis'??

Yep. Why do you hold to nihilism?

Quote:

Seems to be a rather 'shallow' opinion indicating you're not an atheist since the philosophical basis of nihilism - old and new, is the rejection of 'faith' and the moral values stemming from a belief in an imaginary skygod....

Epistemological nihilism is the idea that all certainty in knowledge is impossible.

Sounds more like a type of skepticism to me. I guess nihilism is somewhat related to skepticism. Perhaps extreme skepticism = nihilism. But in any case, it's still a crappy epistemological stance that has no defense against pragmatism.

On: The definition in the dictionary [word web] of Nihilist as 'Someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief'.

Like I said, that's 'popular' nihilism. Dictionary.com has this:

dictionary.com wrote:

4. Philosophy.a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

Generally, you shouldn't trust general-use dictionaries for specialized definitions, but in this case, they have a special entry for philosophical nihilism. And as you can see, it is basically a denial of all knowledge claims.

You are contradicted yourself above by warning me against using general-use dictionaries that you yourself used above to support your argument that nihilism has no philosophical basis. I realize general use dictionaries are too simplistic and antiquated in thought to define philosophical terms.

You'll notice in most dictionaries they strangely define the nihilist in the post-modern sense for their rejection of religious belief, but then revert back to the more antiquated, and historical view of 'nihilism' as a vague concept relegated to the arena of philosophy.

adnihilo wrote:

A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'.

natural wrote:

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means.

Naively presenting your repeated condescending tone as an 'opinion' that claims I don't understand what 'pragmatism' means, and fail to have a comprehension of nihilism, old or new, without supporting this opinion is merely a fallacious use of ad hominems. Just because I'm new here 'natural', doesn't mean you can, or should be condescending toward my life philosophy, or my understanding of various 'Isms'. It is a condescending 'tone' you've taken from your first post in response natural. Apparently you believe I'm one of those high school kids you claim use post modern nihilism as a way to rebel.

Early on in the original post, I explained to you I'd been reading about nihilism, old and new, since the later part of the 20th century. I'd found my anti-religious, anti-faith philosophical stance becoming more and more extreme. Just after that statement, I went on to briefly highlight the primary difference in the foundations of historical nihilism with today's post-modern view in "A common, but misleading and simplistic description of nihilism is the ‘belief in nothing’. Instead, a far more realistic modern description of Nihilism substitutes ‘faith’ for ‘belief,’ where faith is defined as the 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

natural wrote:

What is pragmatic about claiming that all knowledge is impossible?

I, nor post modern nihilism claim 'knowledge is impossible'. You base this view on the simplistic definition of a general use dictionary you warned me against using... You are presenting a most ancient view of nihilism from the Greek Sophists. They were orators that used Sophism as a way to challenge accepted beliefs. They presented invalid arguments, like 'knowledge is impossible' to display ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving someone enough to question their own accepted beliefs..

adnihilo wrote:

A 'true' atheist would also have to agree with the first two primary doctrines of 3 in what you call 'popular nihilism' even to refer to themself as an atheist: 1. God does not exist; 2. Faith-based or religious morality is false. Apparently you're not an atheist, or at least a pragmatic one...

natural wrote:

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently and haven't discussed them much with 'true' atheists, pragmatists, or nihilists. An atheist does not need to agree that 'god does not exist', he merely needs to reject the positive claim that 'god does exist'.

Yes, oh wonderous scribe 'natural', of all that is true in the world. I'm being scarcastic. Jeez, get a grip on yourself natural. Again you're using a condescending tone toward me when presenting your opinion as you've been doing from the very start. You seem to present a belief you're knowledge of the world and its terminology is far superior to anyone else. Not a very becoming trait..

As you can see here on page 2of this RSS post "Neither Side Can Possibly Prove Their Position" in this Freethinking Anonymous section with an analysis from todangst, I know full well what an atheist does or does not have to agree with in order to be considered an atheist.

I'm fully cognizant of the fact Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position in critical thinking eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist. For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny.

Yes, it is always possible valid reliable proof may ‘pop up;’ as in the actual arrival on earth of some all knowing, all powerful supreme being that created the universe or mult-verse, but the reality of this ever happening is highly unlikely given proven scientific laws in quantum mechanics.

Based on this default position, 'most' atheists believe the 'skygod' presented by religion does not exist, at least until such existence is rationally proven otherwise. You're using semantics, natural, to escape the fact that most atheists feel there is no ‘god’ existence to deny. Hence, the 1st primary congnitive statement about nihilism that 'God does not exist' is still essentially true for most any atheist who believes it's up to the theist to prove the existence of the non-existent.

natural wrote:

Nor does an atheist need to reject faith. Most do, of course, but it's not a pre-requisite.

I don't agree with you there natural. Any atheist I've ever known in 'reality' denies any form of Faith. Faith, in the religious sense, presents the mythological lies supporting the strong religious belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Like many people, especially theists, you seem to confuse belief with faith. It’s said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one’s mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction.

I am quite sure natural, that any 'genuine' atheists here at RSS or anywhere on earth, do NOT support 'faith', or use faith to support a belief in some supernatural power or powers that controls human destiny.

natural wrote:

I reject popular nihilism since it has no good philosophical basis and just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

By the same token in analogy, at least according to your way of thinking, natural, one shouldn't adhere to atheism because the overwhelming number of 'new' atheists in America today are high school kids realizing how irrational it is to adhere to religion and any belief in some skygod, as a way to 'rebel' ... You seem to harbor a dim view of of younger folks natural. Granted, high school kids don't have much of life philosophy at that age, it's one that's just forming, and often times confuses anarcho-hucksterism with nihilism, but at least these High School kids are getting off to a rational start in the formation of a life philosophy... They are just beginning to rebel against 'what to think' from using their abilities in 'how to think'. Something quite rare in the dummied down high schools of today after Bush's 'No child left behind' fiasco...

natural wrote:

Why do you hold to nihilism?

Again, as I said early on, I don't accept any group's belief system or 'Ism' as 'authorative' from being a 'free thinker'. However it should be evident from the original post for why I'm supportive of 'post modern nihilism' as the only 'ism' powerful enough to eradicate the myriad of incredibly destructive faith-based ‘isms’ reeking havoc on the world, particularly those of monotheism.

natural wrote:

Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

There’s an intellectual cowardice about the very nature of religion itself that you present in your argument that religion can be reformed, natural. In a genuine quest for equality and freedom for all, religious and otherwise, too many are ignoring a most dangerous and primary characteristic of religion. Religious adherents or faith-based believers are inherently intolerant. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality in tolerance are too often afraid of intellectual engagement that itself tolerates the intolerant.

All too many ignore the rational reality of not just devout Judeo-Christian western societies, but Islamic ones as well. Religion depends on and demands intolerance because of it's basic requirement for an adherent's obstinate and unreasoning attachment to religious faith-based beliefs unfounded in fact. Intolerance is needed for indocrinaton and continued adherence to religious dogma. If believers are not intolerant of other religious beliefs or non belief, these faith-based adherents do not remain devout members of their religion.

It is all too evident from religious wars throughout history, and most notably from various monotheistic wars now being fought in the middle-east, that the future for all humanity depends on an immediate cure for the pandemic level of a faith-based psychosis still afflicting so much of the world’s populace in the 21st century.

natural wrote:

Like I was saying, learn your terms before you throw them about.

I know my 'terms' well natural, but far beyond this simplistic sense you appear here to only relate to them.

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently and haven't discussed them much with 'true' atheists, pragmatists, or nihilists.

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means.

Sounds more like a type of skepticism to me. I guess nihilism is somewhat related to skepticism. Perhaps extreme skepticism = nihilism. But in any case, it's still a crappy epistemological stance that has no defense against pragmatism.

Now I see, said the blind man who's new to the board. From your last paragraph above, it's all too obvious it is YOU, natural, who has not a clue as to what nihilism is, either historical, or post modern.... It is also quite obvious you feel a need to be pompous in a condescending tone in your responses to cover up your limited, simplistic definition of nihilism and understanding of things you falsely claim to intimately 'know'. In light of your 'shit', I need to include another 'shit schism in Ism' for the above list on Pragmatism or Realism: Shit that comes 'Natural'

You're relating only to nihilism from its earliest foundations in sophism and its Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. The Greek sophists, represented the beginning of philosophy and the first conflict between the traditional mystical belief system and a rational, skeptical view of the natural world. Because the sophists challenged established beliefs they were often condemned by public authorities and critics as moral corrupters or worse.

They were orators that used Sophism as a way to challenge accepted beliefs. Sophists typically presented invalid arguments, like 'knowledge is impossible' to display ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving someone enough to question their own accepted beliefs.. Nihilism has advanced far beyond its early beginnings, just like most any other 'Ism'...

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

Generally, you shouldn't trust general-use dictionaries for specialized definitions, but in this case, they have a special entry for philosophical nihilism. And as you can see, it is basically a denial of all knowledge claims.

You are contradicted yourself above by warning me against using general-use dictionaries that you yourself used above to support your argument that nihilism has no philosophical basis.

I guess you can't read English. The word 'generally' and the structure of the sentence indicate there is no contradiction.

Quote:

I realize general use dictionaries are too simplistic and antiquated in thought to define philosophical terms.

You'll notice in most dictionaries they strangely define the nihilist in the post-modern sense for their rejection of religious belief, but then revert back to the more antiquated, and historical view of 'nihilism' as a vague concept relegated to the arena of philosophy.

But if you "realize general use dictionaries are too simplistic and antiquated in thought to define philosophical terms", then who the fuck cares what most dictionaries define nihilism as? I was talking about philosophical nihilism and why I reject it. Clearly, bringing up the def'n of popular nihilism is a red herring.

Quote:

adnihilo wrote:

A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'.

natural wrote:

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means.

Seems to be a rather 'shallow' opinion indicating you're not an atheist

You took the first shot. I'm just returning fire.

Second: You really do not understand pragmatism, and it is clearly apparent from your statement, "A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'." Pragmatism is not a prerequisite of atheism, so your statement is false, indicating you don't understand either pragmatism or atheism. QED

Third: It is not my responsibility to educate you on terms that you can easily research on the web. I am merely pointing out where your errors are. So, my 'repeated condescending tone' is actually your interpretation of my repeatedly pointing out the same error in subsequent posts.

Quote:

, and fail to have a comprehension of nihilism, old or new, without supporting this opinion is merely a fallacious use of ad hominems.

You asked US, which includes ME, this question: "as an atheist, since you would, by most any definition, be a full blown nihilist, do, or could you admit to being an adherent to this more 'radical' nihilist category of atheism? If not, why?"

I answered you, answering that I reject both philosophical and popular nihilism, and I gave my reasons why. Part of my answer was to show you that you are in fact wrong that atheism leads necessarily to nihilism (in either form).

YOU replied to ME with condescension and a failure to take the time to understand MY position. And now you're complaining about MY behaviour? Give it up, man. You reap what you sow.

Quote:

Just because I'm new here 'natural', doesn't mean you can, or should be condescending toward my life philosophy, or my understanding of various 'Isms'.

Take your own advice before you toss it at other people.

Quote:

It is a condescending 'tone' you've taken from your first post in response natural.

How is my first post in any way condescending? Maybe you just don't like people who disagree with you and *interpreted* it as condescending. *That's not my problem, it's yours.*

Let me ask the nihilist this: You say 'true' nihilism is what I call 'popular nihilism', the kind that wants to tear the system down. I say 'true' nihilism is 'philosophical nihilism', that no knowledge is possible. On what justification do you have that YOUR true nihilism is 'more true' than MY true nihilism?

So, if you have no justification for this (as you cannot, being a nihilist), then on what do you base your accusation of condescension?

Quote:

Apparently you believe I'm one of those high school kids you claim use post modern nihilism as a way to rebel.

To me, you are what I call a popular nihilist. You are the kind of nihilist who clings to nihilism in name only. You have your political ideas, not noticing that the idea of politics being real is contradictory to philosophical nihilism. You dress up your ideology and give it a cool-sounding name, but you do not actually base your ideology on the philosophy of nihilism. You're like an anarchist living in the suburbs, living the suburbian life.

Sure that's a stereotype. Prove me wrong man. What I want to know is why you call it nihilism at all. Why not come up with a better name?

Quote:

Early on in the original post, I explained to you I'd been reading about nihilism, old and new, since the later part of the 20th century.

See, this is what gets me about nihilists. How can there be any such thing as 'new' nihilism? As soon as you add some doctrine or tenet, it's not nihilism anymore! It's something else.

Okay man, I'm open minded. Maybe I'm wrong. What is the philosophical foundation of your version of 'nihilism'? This is the key question for me.

Quote:

I went on to briefly highlight the primary difference in the foundations of historical nihilism with today's post-modern view in "A common, but misleading and simplistic description of nihilism is the ‘belief in nothing’. Instead, a far more realistic modern description of Nihilism substitutes ‘faith’ for ‘belief,’ where faith is defined as the 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

You give a 'modern description' of your version of nihilism, but this does not explain its foundation. What I want to know is: How is 'no knowledge is possible' NOT a good description of nihilism, and at the same time, how is your version of nihilism a better description?

How is your version of nihilism more "realistic" than the philosophical one?

Quote:

natural wrote:

What is pragmatic about claiming that all knowledge is impossible?

I, nor post modern nihilism claim 'knowledge is impossible'.

So-called 'postmodern nihilism' has about as much credence in my view as your personal view of nihilism, i.e. none. They are both forms of popular nihilism in my book. Until someone shows me why one actually distinguishes itself from another and still deserves the name 'nihilism', I'll remain unconvinced.

Quote:

You base this view on the simplistic definition of a general use dictionary you warned me against using...

Dude, you must have misread the whole preface to the definition I gave you. When a dictionary has a special entry for a specialized definition (such as dictionary.com's special entry from philosophical nihilism), it's a good bet that this is the def'n to use when using the word in that context (i.e. when talking about nihilism in philosophy). Look at any other philosophical dictionary or philosophy website, and nearly all agree that nihilism is a rejection of knowledge. Find me a site that is not run by popular nihilists that defines nihilism as a popular nihilist would, and does not include the def'n of rejecting knowledge/truth/belief.

You are the one using the messed up definition of nihilism, based on your pseudo-nihilistic agenda.

Quote:

You are presenting a most ancient view of nihilism from the Greek Sophists.

I don't really give a shit where it came from. This is the accepted definition within the study of philosophy (hence why I distinguished it from popular nihilism).

Quote:

adnihilo wrote:

A 'true' atheist would also have to agree with the first two primary doctrines of 3 in what you call 'popular nihilism' even to refer to themself as an atheist: 1. God does not exist; 2. Faith-based or religious morality is false. Apparently you're not an atheist, or at least a pragmatic one...

natural wrote:

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently and haven't discussed them much with 'true' atheists, pragmatists, or nihilists. An atheist does not need to agree that 'god does not exist', he merely needs to reject the positive claim that 'god does exist'.

Yes, oh wonderous scribe 'natural', of all that is true in the world. I'm being scarcastic. Jeez, get a grip on yourself natural.

WTF? Take your own advice before tossing it around.

Quote:

Again you're using a condescending tone toward me when presenting your opinion as you've been doing from the very start. You seem to present a belief you're knowledge of the world and its terminology is far superior to anyone else. Not a very becoming trait..

Look who's talking. You're the one disagreeing with the field of philosophy while claiming to have a superior definition of nihilism. You're the one with the crackpot version of nihilism. Ha! I get it now! You're SO nihilist that you even reject the definition of nihilism.

Look, anyone who claims to be a nihilist but participates in the real world just simply is NOT a nihilist by the philosophical definition. You can dress up as pirates and worsihp FSM and CALL yourself a nihilist, but that doesn't make you a nihilist. Words have meanings. Why don't you call yourself something more descriptive of what you actually believe rather than co-opting a perfectly good word in nihilism?

Quote:

I'm fully cognizant of the fact Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position in critical thinking eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist.

Non-sequitur. Conclusion does not follow.

Quote:

For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny.

Another non-sequitur. Neither of these follow from atheism.

Quote:

Based on this default position, 'most' atheists believe the 'skygod' presented by religion does not exist, at least until such existence is rationally proven otherwise.

What 'most' atheists believe has nothing to do with the def'n of atheism. It does not follow that if most atheists believe X, that therefore atheism implies belief in X.

Quote:

You're using semantics, natural, to escape the fact that most atheists feel there is no ‘god’ existence to deny. Hence, the 1st primary congnitive statement about nihilism that 'God does not exist' is still essentially true for most any atheist who believes it's up to the theist to prove the existence of the non-existent.

And you accuse me of semantic fallacy! 'Essentially true' does not imply positive belief. 'Most any atheist' is also not 'all atheists by definition'.

All of this bickering over atheism is only showing one thing: You have a lot of preconceived notions about atheism that do not hold up to the light of day. You throw around terms you don't have a firm grasp on, exactly as I said. QED.

Theism: When you agree with the statement "I believe in a god or gods."

Atheism: When you disagree with the statement.

That is all. Atheism is not derived from nihilism.

Quote:

natural wrote:

Nor does an atheist need to reject faith. Most do, of course, but it's not a pre-requisite.

I don't agree with you there natural.

I'm not surprised.

Quote:

Any atheist I've ever known in 'reality' denies any form of Faith.

And this supports your assertion how? If the only kinds of swans you've seen were white does that mean that all swans are white?

Quote:

Faith, in the religious sense, presents the mythological lies supporting the strong religious belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Displaying your ignorance proudly again, eh?

Look, I'm not picking on you because you're new here. I'm picking on you because you don't know what you're talking about and are throwing around defintions left and right that nearly any member of this board could refute.

You say "Atheists believe there is no god." We've debunked that a million times. You say "Faith is about mythology and supernaturalism". We say faith is attempting to justify belief without evidence. We've rehashed this discussion over and over. You being new here means you haven't experienced these discussions and rehashes. Therefore, don't go tossing around definitions without backing them up.

So far you haven't backed up anything you've said.

Quote:

Like many people, especially theists, you seem to confuse belief with faith.

What rubbish.

Okay, show me how your def'n of faith is so superior that it must be right. Please provide a decent justification so we can see how your nihilism guides your reasoning.

Quote:

It’s said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.

WTF? Why are you telling me this?

Quote:

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one’s mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction.

How do you KNOW any of this? Is it all just wild assertions? What is your justification for believing any of this?

More importantly, what has this got to do with anything?

Quote:

I am quite sure natural, that any 'genuine' atheists here at RSS or anywhere on earth, do NOT support 'faith', or use faith to support a belief in some supernatural power or powers that controls human destiny.

So what? What is this supposed to prove?

Quote:

natural wrote:

I reject popular nihilism since it has no good philosophical basis and just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

By the same token in analogy, at least according to your way of thinking, natural, one shouldn't adhere to atheism because the overwhelming number of 'new' atheists in America today are high school kids realizing how irrational it is to adhere to religion and any belief in some skygod, as a way to 'rebel' ...

WTF? That makes zero sense. You don't actually read what I write do you? Because you missed the important part about not having a sound philosophical basis, and the part about where I disagree with it.

Quote:

You seem to harbor a dim view of of younger folks natural.

You seem to have no reading comprehension. You also seem to insert your own interpretation of my words into the argument.

Quote:

Granted, high school kids don't have much of life philosophy at that age, it's one that's just forming, and often times confuses anarcho-hucksterism with nihilism, but at least these High School kids are getting off to a rational start in the formation of a life philosophy...

Are you talking about atheism now, or nihilism? Nihilism is not a rational life philosophy, neither philosophical nihilism nor the popular kind. And what does any of this have to do with the fact that I see no point in nihilism other than rebellion for rebellion's sake?

You know, a better way to argue your position would be to actually make a case for nihilism. So far you have provided nothing of substance.

Quote:

They are just beginning to rebel against 'what to think' from using their abilities in 'how to think'. Something quite rare in the dummied down high schools of today after Bush's 'No child left behind' fiasco...

I mean, is this supposed to be a defense of nihilism?????

What is your frigging point?

Quote:

natural wrote:

Why do you hold to nihilism?

Again, as I said early on, I don't accept any group's belief system or 'Ism' as 'authorative' from being a 'free thinker'. However it should be evident from the original post for why I'm supportive of 'post modern nihilism' as the only 'ism' powerful enough to eradicate the myriad of incredibly destructive faith-based ‘isms’ reeking havoc on the world, particularly those of monotheism.

This is a motivation for WANTING to agree with your funky nihilism, but it is not a REASON to hold to it. What is your reason for holding to nihilism? Gimme some logical justifications. What is the foundation of this worldview?

"I want to go to heaven," is a motivation for wanting to believe in Christianity, but it is not a justification for believing that Christianity is true. Would you agree that "I want to go to heaven" does nothing to support the case for Christianity?

An attempted justification for Christianity might start with, "I believe it because the Bible is the true word of God." Of course, such an attempt will lead to a circular argument, but that's beside the point. The point is that I want to see your own justification for why you believe in your version of nihilism.

Quote:

natural wrote:

Specifically I disagree that the only way to fix religion is to tear it down. I think it can be reformed and that reforming it is the only plausible solution I can see.

There’s an intellectual cowardice about the very nature of religion itself that you present in your argument that religion can be reformed, natural.

WTF are you talking about? Could you reword that sentence, as I have no idea what it is supposed to convey. Are you saying religion is intellectually cowardly, or that I am, or some other meaning altogether? If you are calling me intellectually cowardly, then by all means back it up with some proof or evidence.

Quote:

In a genuine quest for equality and freedom for all, religious and otherwise, too many are ignoring a most dangerous and primary characteristic of religion. Religious adherents or faith-based believers are inherently intolerant.

Who said religion had to be faith based? Seems like you don't even have an understanding of the various definitions of 'religion' either. What a surprise.

Quote:

Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality in tolerance are too often afraid of intellectual engagement that itself tolerates the intolerant.

WTF are you talking about? You seem to have a habit of making a lot of assumptions and using loaded definitions of words in conjunction with equivocation. Instead of all this grandstanding, just make a logical argument and support it with some evidence, please. I can barely stand this ambiguous language coming from someone who *claims* to be more rational than most of the atheists on this board (claiming the only rational position is positive belief that there is no god).

Quote:

All too many ignore the rational reality of not just devout Judeo-Christian western societies, but Islamic ones as well. Religion depends on and demands intolerance because of it's basic requirement for an adherent's obstinate and unreasoning attachment to religious faith-based beliefs unfounded in fact. Intolerance is needed for indocrinaton and continued adherence to religious dogma. If believers are not intolerant of other religious beliefs or non belief, these faith-based adherents do not remain devout members of their religion.

You have a narrow view of religion, likely corrupted by the same illogic that makes you think all swans are white after seeing only white swans.

Quote:

It is all too evident from religious wars throughout history, and most notably from various monotheistic wars now being fought in the middle-east, that the future for all humanity depends on an immediate cure for the pandemic level of a faith-based psychosis still afflicting so much of the world’s populace in the 21st century.

What's your point? Is this supposed to be a justification of nihilism? Is it supposed to convince me that all religion is faith-based? It does neither.

Quote:

natural wrote:

Like I was saying, learn your terms before you throw them about.

I know my 'terms' well natural, but far beyond this simplistic sense you appear here to only relate to them.

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently and haven't discussed them much with 'true' atheists, pragmatists, or nihilists.

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means.

Sounds more like a type of skepticism to me. I guess nihilism is somewhat related to skepticism. Perhaps extreme skepticism = nihilism. But in any case, it's still a crappy epistemological stance that has no defense against pragmatism.

Now I see, said the blind man who's new to the board. From your last paragraph above, it's all too obvious it is YOU, natural, who has not a clue as to what nihilism is, either historical, or post modern.... It is also quite obvious you feel a need to be pompous in a condescending tone in your responses to cover up your limited, simplistic definition of nihilism and understanding of things you falsely claim to intimately 'know'. In light of your 'shit', I need to include another 'shit schism in Ism' for the above list on Pragmatism or Realism: Shit that comes 'Natural'

You're relating only to nihilism from its earliest foundations in sophism and its Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. The Greek sophists, represented the beginning of philosophy and the first conflict between the traditional mystical belief system and a rational, skeptical view of the natural world. Because the sophists challenged established beliefs they were often condemned by public authorities and critics as moral corrupters or worse.

They were orators that used Sophism as a way to challenge accepted beliefs. Sophists typically presented invalid arguments, like 'knowledge is impossible' to display ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving someone enough to question their own accepted beliefs.. Nihilism has advanced far beyond its early beginnings, just like most any other 'Ism'...

Blah blah blah. Nothing but assertions. HOW has nihilism 'advanced' beyond 'knowledge is impossible'? What new 'tenets' of nihilism are there, and how do you justify them?

I guess you can't read English. The word 'generally' and the structure of the sentence indicate there is no contradiction.

A refusal to admit to your contradiction by claiming I can't read? Refer to the entire context of the statements, rather than the structure of your sentence.

natural wrote:

"True nihilism is that nothing can be known."

But if you "realize general use dictionaries are too simplistic and antiquated in thought to define philosophical terms", then who the fuck cares what most dictionaries define nihilism as? I was talking about philosophical nihilism and why I reject it. Clearly, bringing up the def'n of popular nihilism is a red herring.

Again, you're defining 'philosophical nihilism' as "True nihilism is that nothing can be known" from where its derived in its earliest foundations in sophism from Greek Sophists who lived about 2500 years ago. The sophists claimed 'knowledge is impossible' only to display some ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving someone enough to question their own accepted beliefs.. That only relates to the philosophy of Sophists 2500 years ago who were considered an early form of nihilist philosophers.

natural wrote:

First: You started the condescension, not me. You took the first shot. I'm just returning fire.

You all too conviently left out your first response

natural wrote:

The kind of nihilism you're talking about is a kind of 'popular' nihilism. just seems like highschool kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling.

Then I followed with:

adnihilo wrote:

Seems to be a rather 'shallow' opinion indicating you're not an atheist since the philosophical basis of nihilism - old and new, is the rejection of 'faith' and the moral values stemming from a belief in an imaginary skygod....

Take a closer look at what your initial condescending tone that defined my views of 'popular nihilism' as equivalent to "high school kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling". That is a shallow opinion of both me and popular nihilism you take right from the very start. You also take a condescending tone towards the overwhelming number of 'new' atheists in America who are high school students rebelling against accepted Judeo-Christian norms.

natural wrote:

Second: You really do not understand pragmatism, and it is clearly apparent from your statement, "A 'true' atheist would see the pragmatitism in that statement defining a 'Nihilist'." Pragmatism is not a prerequisite of atheism, so your statement is false, indicating you don't understand either pragmatism or atheism.

Where did I say or even infer "Pragmatism is a prerequisite of atheism". I didn't say that anywhere natural. What I did say was an atheist would see the pragmatic, or practical value of replacing your antiquated, irrelevant view of nihilism based in the age old sophists' ‘belief in nothing’ with today's more common view of nihilism as 'faith in nothing'. Which of course would make atheism a prerequisite of nihilism, not Pragmatism.

natural wrote:

You throw 'pragmatism' around as if you know what it means. Kinda like how you throw 'nihilism' around, not really knowing what it means.

Like I was saying, learn your terms before you throw them about.

Apparently, you're just learning your philosophical terms recently

natural wrote:

Third: It is not my responsibility to educate you on terms that you can easily research on the web. I am merely pointing out where your errors are. So, my 'repeated condescending tone' is actually your interpretation of my repeatedly pointing out the same error in subsequent posts.

You need to get a grip on your pontificating, pompous, overblown view of your own intelligence, or lack thereoff natural.... Over and over again, rather than attack what I've written. you attack only me in classic ad hominem fallacious argument by vaguely claiming I don't comprehend common terminology. I can pretty much guarantee I'm far more formally educated than you, and surely comprehend nihilism far beyond your rather simplistic understanding of it....

natural wrote:

I answered you, answering that I reject both philosophical and popular nihilism, and I gave my reasons why. Part of my answer was to show you that you are in fact wrong that atheism leads necessarily to nihilism (in either form).

Again, you're making up statements that I never made natural. Please STOP IT! No where have I stated "atheism leads necessarily to nihilism". However I did say atheism, or a lack of religious 'faith', is a prerequisite of nihilism. One has to be an atheist to adhere to a 'modern' nihilist philosophy.

natural wrote:

YOU replied to ME with condescension and a failure to take the time to understand MY position. And now you're complaining about MY behaviour? Give it up, man. You reap what you sow.

You couldn't have made it any clearer in your initial response that took a dim and condescending, tone towards both myself and high school kids rebelling in "The kind of nihilism you're talking about is a kind of 'popular' nihilism [which] just seems like high school kids rebelling for the sake of rebelling".

I'm not going to debate who was condescending to whom first any longer with you. In most every instance your arguments are that of a little child mocking an adult for disciplining them. The annoying little brat who mimics, mocks and repeats everything an adult says to try and help them to grow up... Grow up child!

natural wrote:

Let me ask the nihilist this: You say 'true' nihilism is what I call 'popular nihilism', the kind that wants to tear the system down. I say 'true' nihilism is 'philosophical nihilism', that no knowledge is possible.

Again, NO, that's NOT WHAT I SAID. I said "A nihilist in the simplistic sense, is one who rejects all faith-based or religious belief systems just as an atheist does, but is someone that seeks to destroy faith-based structures, regardless of the outcome." Please stop paraphrasing what I've posted to alter the meaning!

natural wrote:

On what justification do you have that YOUR true nihilism is 'more true' than MY true nihilism? So, if you have no justification for this (as you cannot, being a nihilist), then on what do you base your accusation of condescension?

I repeat, your contention of 'philosophical nihilism' as a 'a belief in nothing', is based on age-old sophists considered to be an early form of nihilism. Again, the sophists only presented this 'belief in nothing' to challenge the traditional mystical belief systems of their time 2500 years ago. Sophists typically presented invalid arguments, like 'knowledge is impossible' and 'belief in nothing' to display ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving someone enough to question their own accepted beliefs.. Nihilism has advanced far beyond its early beginnings, just like most any other 'Ism'...

natural wrote:

To me, you are what I call a popular nihilist. You are the kind of nihilist who clings to nihilism in name only. You have your political ideas, not noticing that the idea of politics being real is contradictory to philosophical nihilism. You dress up your ideology and give it a cool-sounding name, but you do not actually base your ideology on the philosophy of nihilism. You're like an anarchist living in the suburbs, living the suburbian life.

You're such a demeaning little prick natural. This is the condescending tone and ignorant stereotype you've maintained from your very first post. It is an ignorant, demeaning tone and opinion that's directed right at me and stems from your own over-generalized, simplistic, and flawed misunderstanding of modern nihilism that wrongly relates it to anarchism and high school kids with an immature life philosophy rebelling against society.

I repeat, from the initial post, in hopes you this time comprehend what I wrote: "Nihilism really has little to do with 'anarcho-hucksters' of any variety, no matter if of the socialist variety, or the anarcho-capitalist Randian version found in America's social darwinist, pseudo-libertarian movement. Anarcho-hucksters do not focus on denying fallacious belief systems, but do reject many of the same ‘isms’ and institutions stemming from the fraud of faith-based belief systems.

natural wrote:

Sure that's a stereotype. Prove me wrong man. What I want to know is why you call it nihilism at all. Why not come up with a better name?

And you've just proven why stereotyping, or pigeonholing someone's personal life philosopy, as well as the philosphy itself, can end up to showing how such over-generalizations are many times highly flawed, or downright wrong. I admit, I make them to at times as an atheist about 'faith-based' believers, but rarely about the monotheist religions they put faith in.

Quote:

Early on in the original post, I explained to you I'd been reading about nihilism, old and new, since the later part of the 20th century.

natural wrote:

See, this is what gets me about nihilists. How can there be any such thing as 'new' nihilism? As soon as you add some doctrine or tenet, it's not nihilism anymore! It's something else.

Belief systems alter and change through time. You're still trying to define nihilism by the sophists 2500 years ago who have been referred to as an early form of nihilism that challenged accepted, but flawed mythical beliefs. The tenets, or doctrine in today's Christianity is completely different from its original doctrine before the council of Nicea in I think the 3rd century. Our own government's view [or rule] in 'Democracy' is surely not based on the constitution, nor that of our founding fathers who wrote it.

Again, like most any philosophy, Nihilism has advanced far beyond its early beginnings linked to the sophists 'belief in nothing' as the first philosophers to challenge traditional mythological beliefs systems.

natural wrote:

Okay man, I'm open minded. Maybe I'm wrong. What is the philosophical foundation of your version of 'nihilism'? This is the key question for me.

Again you prove you didn't read, much less comprehend the very first initial post I made before making your initial response, with that pompous over-generalized, demeaning attitude maintain. Just re-read the initial post you obviously didn't read to begin with to answer your own question.

natural wrote:

You give a 'modern description' of your version of nihilism, but this does not explain its foundation. What I want to know is: How is 'no knowledge is possible' NOT a good description of nihilism, and at the same time, how is your version of nihilism a better description?

I repeat, that direct 'no knowlege is possible' phrase you use to define nihilism is exactly what the sophists argued ONLY to challenge the accepted traditional mythological beliefs 2500 years ago. It is one of many deliberately invalid arguments they used to display ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes eliminating someone's flawed mythical beliefs. Sophists again were considered early nihilists because they were among the first philosophers to challenge the common, and flawed mythical belief systems of their day.

natural wrote:

How is your version of nihilism more "realistic" than the philosophical one?

Natural, you first say you don't adhere to what you label as 'philosophical nihilism' because you don't agree with its philosophical foundations as a 'belief in nothing'. Now you want to defend your supposed belief in it? Obviously a 'belief in nothing' is contradictory from being a belief in and of itself. Yet here you pretend now to view what you call 'philosophical nihilism' stemming from the sophists as 'realistic'. If you'd just read, or even comprehended my initial post before answering with your pomposity, you'd know that more modern nihilistic 'faith in nothing' philosophy is more 'realistic' [and just for you natural, also pragmatic] than the old sophists claim of a 'belief in nothing'. Again, a claim they never actually believed, but used to disarm the adherents of traditional mythological belief systems 2500 years ago.

natural wrote:

So-called 'postmodern nihilism' has about as much credence in my view as your personal view of nihilism, i.e. none. They are both forms of popular nihilism in my book. Until someone shows me why one actually distinguishes itself from another and still deserves the name 'nihilism', I'll remain unconvinced.

Again natural, you falsely claim I posted something I never wrote anywhere in a post. The postmodern view of nihilism I provided in the intial post is not distinct or different from my own view as you wrongly claimed above. As I first posted, today's nihilists maintaine 3 primary views in their philosophy: God does not exist; Faith-based or religious morality is false and; All faith-based social organizations, government and culture is so diseased that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake.

If that has no credence to you, than that's just peachy. Believe what you choose to believe.. AND MOVE ON!

Quote:

You base this view on the simplistic definition of a general use dictionary you warned me against using...

natural wrote:

Find me a site that is not run by popular nihilists that defines nihilism as a popular nihilist would, and does not include the def'n of rejecting knowledge/truth/belief.

How on earth could you be compelled to respond to an initial post you so obviously didn't even read, much less comprehend? The answer is glaring at you right in your pompous 'holier than thou' face! If you'd even bothered to glance at my intial post before answering it with that condescending attitude of yours that equated my knowledge and awareness of nihilism to your ignorant stereotype of me as some 'high school kid rebelling', YOU'D KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR OWN IGNORANT QUESTION!

natural wrote:

You are the one using the messed up definition of nihilism, based on your pseudo-nihilistic agenda.

Ah, just blow it out your pompous, ignorant ass where your head is lodged natural. I noticed some 'moderators' here also had some problems with the pompous, blowhard attitude you maintain in posts...

There's nothing 'pseudo' or fake about those 3 primary beliefs by modern nihilists. I suggest you just go do some research before giving what are your opinions derived from false ass-umptions spewing out of your head lodged up your own butt hole.

Quote:

You are presenting a most ancient view of nihilism from the Greek Sophists.

natural wrote:

I don't really give a shit where it came from. This is the accepted definition within the study of philosophy (hence why I distinguished it from popular nihilism).

No, of course you don't 'give a shit' about what were considered some of the earliest types of nihilists, or where they're coming from - because then it would of course prove you are a pontificating, overbearing bozo who hasn't a clue in what he's talking about.

Again, I repeat, It is the accepted definition of sophists referred to as early nihilists 2500 fricking years ago! It is YOUR accepted definition of nihilism from simplistic dictionaries that don't go beyond an equally simplistic understanding of early nihilism.

natural wrote:

WTF? Take your own advice before tossing it around.

Your arguments continue to mimic me just like a little child mimics an adult in an immature mocking cry about being discplined, natural..

natural wrote:

You're the one with the crackpot version of nihilism. Ha! I get it now! You're SO nihilist that you even reject the definition of nihilism.

Again, this modern 'version' I gave you that replaces 'faith' for 'belief' in nothing IS NOT A CRACKPOT VERSION! It is the common view taken by nihilists TODAY, you ignorant buffoon. How many times do I have to repeat things for you to comprehend them?You're arguments are constantly aimed at attacking me, rather than attacking any specific argument I've made. I'm getting very tired of answering these typical 3rd grade level 'ditto head' responses from you that I normally get from the common, deluded Christian republican bozo.

natural wrote:

Look, anyone who claims to be a nihilist but participates in the real world just simply is NOT a nihilist by the philosophical definition. You can dress up as pirates and worsihp FSM and CALL yourself a nihilist, but that doesn't make you a nihilist.

Again you're making conclusions that are based not in response to what I said, much less fact, but from your blowhard, pompous opinions. You can wrongly continue to be dogmatic about your belief that today's nihilist can only be defined as a 'philosophical nihilist' who must 'believe in nothing' in order to be a nihilist. But you'll also continue to be dead wrong! This is simply not true and I've explained it to you over and over why it is not true!

If you want to continue simplistically defining today's nihilism as a 'belief in nothing' based on its early sophist beginnings, than you go right ahead. It just shows you're simple minded understanding of it. I don't really give a rat's ass, because I know it aint true along with anyone who's read a little deeper into what today's nihilists generally believe to be true for them...

natural wrote:

Why don't you call yourself something more descriptive of what you actually believe rather than co-opting a perfectly good word in nihilism?

So now your going to defend this philosophy you don't even comprehend? I didn't co-opt the term nihilism to describe my beliefs you pontificating, pompous prick, but posted the 3 primary beliefs a nihilist adheres to today that I also agree with! Again, I quote my first post you obviously never read with its first paragraph here "I wouldn't say I accept any group's belief system as 'authorative', but society could combine a few Isms to represent my own life philosophy."

Quote:

I'm fully cognizant of the fact Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position in critical thinking eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist.

natural wrote:

Non-sequitur. Conclusion does not follow.

Which for you means you're just too stupid to understand the conclusion that follows.. Conclusion does follow, but you fail to think beyond your simplistic definitions to comprehend them or make inferences to rationally see the conclusion. I repeat again, since you can't follow a few sententences to their conclusion. "Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position in critical thinking eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist. For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny."

Quote:

For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny.

natural wrote:

Another non-sequitur. Neither of these follow from atheism.

What a pompous jack ass you are by using 'latin' to claim 'it doesn't flow' instead of actually spelling out exactly why the conclusion does not follow from the premise. You're only showing you just didn't comprehend the default position in order to understand its conclusion.

I didn't say this default position 'flows' from atheism. The default position requires a nonexistent stance for ‘gods’ never proven to exist. A god ‘believer’ or theist can only present a presumptive premise for the ‘existence’ of some omnipotent entity WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL PROOF. There is no proven existence of a god to deny. You're not the brightest bulb on the porch natural. Problem is, you seem to think you are....

That very statement I made is the same as what you earlier defined an atheist to be - as one who "merely needs to reject the positive claim that 'god does exist'." Except YOU ARE TO IGNORANT TO COMPRHEND THAT.

Read closely Mr. Non-sequitur, by stating "there is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny" I'm also stating the very same thing you did that an atheist "rejects the positive claim that 'god does exist'." Do you even understand what I mean by 'the default positon' on the existence of the non-existent in rational thought? Think very hard and try to connect the words...

Quote:

Based on this default position, 'most' atheists believe the 'skygod' presented by religion does not exist, at least until such existence is rationally proven otherwise.

natural wrote:

What 'most' atheists believe has nothing to do with the def'n of atheism. It does not follow that if most atheists believe X, that therefore atheism implies belief in X.

I see, so 'most' atheists you've known believe a god exists, or don't believe a god exists?

natural wrote:

'Most any atheist' is also not 'all atheists by definition'.

And your point being?...... 'most' is used because it is not an absolutist term.

natural wrote:

All of this bickering over atheism is only showing one thing: You have a lot of preconceived notions about atheism that do not hold up to the light of day. You throw around terms you don't have a firm grasp on, exactly as I said.

Stop making statements you don't support. Exactly what are thes "preconceived notions" you claim I have about atheism? All your bickering is to claim what you think I do or don't know or believe as a nihilist or an atheist? Who the fuck are you asshole to define ME??? Except an arrogant prick who shows me ONE PRIMARY THING: You're a pompous asshole that wants to tell me who I am and what I should believe according to your bible of 'natural'. It's always 'you' this and 'you' that in supporting your arguments that present only your opinionated pompous pontifications claiming I don't know what various 'isms' mean. You say nothing but generalizations about 'who I am' and 'what I don't know' without being specific. Listen my pompous 'dude' full of ass-umptions, I fully know what an atheist is from being one for a very long time. I fully know what today's nihilist believes to be true and have repeatedly explained it to you.

natural wrote:

Theism: When you agree with the statement "I believe in a god or gods."

Atheism: When you disagree with the statement.

That is all. Atheism is not derived from nihilism.

Jeez, you're a fucking dick head..

YOU ARE MAKING UP SHIT AS YOU GO ALONG NATURAL! NEVER DID I SAY AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, THAT ATHEISM IS DERIVED FROM NIHILISM... Nor do I think it was!

Your making shit up I never even posted anywhere natural, much less believe! So let me leave it at 'I do agree to disagree with you' - because you're a disagreeable, pompous personality that revels in his own meaningless bullshit to appear 'superior' in a knowledge you simply don't have. You've only proven to show me that you're head has been stuck so far up your ass for so long, and the shit's spewing out your mouth so far, it's reaching your fingertips on your keyboard...

That's it. I'm not even going to bother answering this rambling fiction you invent here natural about what I said and didn't say in post, much less let you define me, or make false claims about what I've said, or inferred so you can infer I'm don't understand atheism or nihilism. Just go fuck yourself natural and don't speak to me here or anywhere. I think you're a complete and utter demeaning asshole who has some major problems going on in that deluded head stuck up your ass.

After checking on other posts, I saw some moderators also had the same sort of problems with your delusions in posts about things that were never said, nor there. Things you INVENT in your own sick little mind to continue on pontificating about bullshit that has nothing to do with anything, much less what I said here in response to my initial post you so obviously didn't read, or comprehend.

As someone being brand new as this board, I did a little research to see if others here had the same sort of problems with your 'holier than thou' pomposity and attitude portrayed in posts. This dogmatic tone you take that chooses to condecend, rather than be of any real help toward understanding.

Well, that's just how some other long time moderators and members termed your 'cyber presence' here - 'holier than thou', which is of course just another way of saying you're a pompous, little prick who posts under a guise of being helpful, but whose real intent is to revel in his own arrogant bullshit. Members and moderators who referenced the very same sort of problems I've repeately noted here about your posts - that have no intent of sharing knowledge, but to only condescend and demean from this 'holier than thou', arrogant authoritarian personality you present.

You'll notice this small sampling of complaints from others, that will go unmentioned, revolve around the same sort of issues in why I just don't want you to 'cyber' speak to me any longer. You're an annoying pest, or as another put it, a board 'troll'.

All about natural:

Quote:

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words.

Quote:

there's not even a potential to help - just you acting holier than thou...

Quote:

You really aren't very good at arguing points

Quote:

I have no choice but to run into you and other people looking to troll the board under the guise of 'being helpful'

Quote:

You're just a troll with an axe to grind.

Quote:

Please notice how often you have to repeat what has already been said. Please notice how much time has to be dedicated to getting this guy to realize what his OWN POSTS say.

Above comments about you natural, are something I've constantly had to reiterate in response to you. Worse than that, you obviously didn't even read my initial post, but have the audacity to be condescending toward me in response to it. All while continuing to deliberate on and define 'who I am, and what I know' when you don't know squat about me, much less know squat about what you're even talking about.

Quote:

This is not rational discourse.

The above final summation from a moderator about your sincerely unwanted posts not designed to be of any help, or further knowledge in the least, would best sum up my own feelings on relating to you - I DO NOT WANT TO RELATE TO, OR SPEAK WITH YOU ANY FURTHER NATURAL! So Please, be kind enough to avoid any further contact with me, or response to my posts BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!

The only thing 'natural' about you is your 'natural' ability to infuriate others from your pompous, arrogant, cyber presence and demeaning attitude that is neither appreciated, nor wanted.

So let's make a deal - Just don't respond to any posts I make and I won't respond to yours...

Just move on natural, nothing to see here, except for the obvious delusions you keep presenting to falsely define me, who I am and what I've posted. Just get all 'anal' in your posts with that pompous bullshit of yours by trolling for some other victim.

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

I generally draw a distinction between nihilism and epistemological nihilism.

Nihilism I define as being the idea that there is no value, purpose, or meaning inherent in life.

Epistemological nihilism is the idea that all certainty in knowledge is impossible.

I suppose the definitions could vary from discussion to discussion, but these uses are the ones I employ.

Shaun

Thanks for responding Shaun... I'm so pleased to see you can 'draw a distinction' between "nihilism and epistemological nihilism"! Especially after all the above nonsense I was put thru on my very first post here at RRS! The "all certainty in knowledge is impossible" way you describe Epistemological, or historical nihilism, seems to be more reasonable one from what I've read than describing it as 'a belief in nothing', or simply 'knowledge is impossible'..

And your description of the modern nihilist viewpoint that there is 'no inherent meaning in life' would also be correct because a primary element of modern nihilism is the rejection of any 'final purpose', or teleology.

However the active, or political nihilist, at least compared to the passive, existential nihilist, could be said to portray a distinct revolutionary purpose in life that seeks to destroy social and political structures, particularly faith-based social and political organizations, because they are so diseased, that their total destruction is the only viable solution, independent, or regardless of any constructive plan or outcome. For reasons I won't get into now, I too feel monotheist based social and political structures and organizations are so diseased, they need to be destroyed, regardless of the outcome.

I have seen what appears to be a highly regarded and accepted definition of a Nihilist in: "One who bows to no authority and accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by proof." Although I agree with it, it perhaps more perfectly defines a freethinker...

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

Shouldn't all theists end up being nihilist? If you believe that god created everything and has the power to change anything (like logic and value or human perception) then you would have to conclude that everything is subjective. So at least nihilist came to the logical conclusion from their illogical premise. But then you have to reject things like knowledge that you rely on everyday and that doesn't make much sense.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

3. All faith-based social organizations, government and culture is so diseased that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake independent of any constructive plan or outcome.

Depends what we mean by "destroy" here. Physically destroy, including the people involved? No. Destroy as faith-based entities? Hell yes. I for one cling to hope that government, society and culture can be purged of serious religious influence without having to be destroyed.

BTW, welcome to the boards Adnihilo and don't let Natural bug you.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Thank you for demonstrating typical theist autocratic thinking. Unlike religious types, we atheists can disagree, vehemently, without doing any damage to our philosphical position or credibility. This is because we are not forced to buy into a whole suite of positions, associated with a particular label, that are handed down from a presumed higher authority (whether he be the pope or some guy on TV). Theists, on the other hand, have build their worldview on a self-referential house of cards that crumbles the moment one piece is removed.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

I can disagree theologically with Catholic theologians and not damage my credibility. That is why there can be schools of theological thought in Catholicism; for example, the Molinist, the Scotist, the Thomist, and the Ressourcement schools. But these are all Catholic positions. I cannot disagree with the Pope's infallible decrees or the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, or the like, but it doesn't quelch any ability to inquire into theological or philosophical truth at all.

I daresay my position is most certainly not a house of cards ready to crumble. Mine has been built where it should be: on the rock of Christ and in centuries of His Church's thinking tradition.

Shouldn't all theists end up being nihilist? If you believe that god created everything and has the power to change anything (like logic and value or human perception) then you would have to conclude that everything is subjective.

For theists to end up as nihilists, they'd first have to discard their faith-based belief system in mythological lies. And of course that'd be just swell, because then the political, or active nihilist wouldn't have to destroy the diseased theist social/political structures, for there'd be none to destroy..

Gauche wrote:

So at least nihilist came to the logical conclusion from their illogical premise. But then you have to reject things like knowledge that you rely on everyday and that doesn't make much sense.

Relating to today's nihillist as "One who bows to no authority and accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by proof" in much the same way as a freethinker would seem more appropriate...

Imaginary_StMichael wrote:

And you started this post to prove religions have many schisms...

Perhaps in your fantasy world of a Santa SkyGod and imaginary Angels, but here in reality you should note in the initial post that Schism of Isms presented lists them in two separate categories; one religious and one philosophical. The purpose being to compare all their Ism Schisms by their 'shit', not just to single out religions to prove they have many schisms, which of course they do.. The underlying purpose was to present a more humorous context and light hearted approach to describing 'the shit' in all the Isms listed...

Tilberian wrote:

Depends what we mean by "destroy" here. Physically destroy, including the people involved? No. Destroy as faith-based entities? Hell yes. I for one cling to hope that government, society and culture can be purged of serious religious influence without having to be destroyed.

The active, or political nihilist, would seek to physically destroy the cultural, social and political influence of diseased belief systems, or 'isms' not supported by fact. This of course could mean physically destroing their buildings, their organizational structure, and their leaders... For me personally, to destroy them would mean to 'render them harmless' to civilization...

Your more passive, or existentialist agreement to those 3 primary elements in today's nihilism as an atheist that is expressed as 'hope', can be augmented to a more active role by verbally confronting monotheists [Judeo-Christian and Moslem] in a [real life] public reality, rather than just a cyber one, just as many RRS guerillas are doing here and now.

Which is why I was so attracted to this RRS group! More and more I find myself intentionally, verbally confronting 'theists' and their fraudulent faith-based beliefs out in the open in the real world... Something we'd of been executed for a mere few hundred years ago! I've gotten in some knock down, drag out verbal battles in public places! Even in an eye doctor's waiting room with 15 or so mostly Christians attacking me at once over a rather 'loud' comment I'd made about a Fox TV news broadcoast. Same thing happened at a Vegas court house waiting to be called to reside on a jury, again with Fox news Judeo-Christian propaganda channel on the TV and the only reading sources from 'Mormon Magazines'.... I felt like I was imprisoned in some sort of Religious Right Wing alternate universe!

Tilberian wrote:

BTW, welcome to the boards Adnihilo and don't let Natural bug you.

Hey, thanks. Like any board, no matter 'how rational' its purpose, that dreaded, dogmatic authoritarian personality so common to right wingnuts that I just can't tolerate because of its intolerance, can always be found attached to a few of its members..

Tilberian wrote:

Unlike religious types, we atheists can disagree, vehemently, without doing any damage to our philosphical position or credibility. This is because we are not forced to buy into a whole suite of positions, associated with a particular label, that are handed down from a presumed higher authority (whether he be the pope or some guy on TV).

There you make a very relevant point Tilberian about the 'authoritarian personality' inherent to the "Homo Religiosus" sub species. The authoritarian personality is characterized as conventional, submissive to authority, and aggressive toward deviants and outsiders (Altemeyer, 1981).

Most freethinkers can easily recognize this RWA personality that shares similar characteristics or ‘traits’ with the ‘true believer’ from: excessive conformity; submissiveness to authority; intolerance; insecurity; superstition and; ridged, stereotyped thought patterns. All the preceeding characteristics are identified by German sociologist and philosopher, Theodor W. Adorno as traits of an Authoritarian Personality.

Members of large authoritarian groups, regardless if religious, political or fraternal, are to a large degree, externally directed. Their immense need for external direction drives them to join mass movements by the droves to follow a charismatic leader. As long as dependent minded followers believe, their leader can get away with anything.

A common hatred, enemy, or devil is essential to the success of both their leaders and their groups characterized by an ‘us versus them’ attitude of bigotry, and hate towards outsiders. Their internal dependence on external group thought and direction is a primary reason they’ve been so successful at imposing authoritarian rule throughout history using a few select faith-based leaders. The most extreme racist hate groups in America like the KKK, Aryan Nation and others, all have a Christian identity that supercedes their bigoted racial supremacy. Right wing political groups in America also have a primary Christian identity that supercedes their underlying right wing political goals.

True believers seem to almost always be raised in an authoritarian environments. They have typically been taught ‘what’ to think, rather than ‘how’ to think from birth. Instead of a philosophy based in reason to guide them, or show them the path, they rely on others, typically authoritarian figures, both alive and dead, to direct their thoughts and actions taken in life. Like all that suffer from deeper levels of psychosis, they refuse to acknowledge they even have a mental disorder where contact with reality has been completely lost or at best, highly distorted.

“High RWAs are not likely to come up with the answers to our global problems. They are far too ethnocentric. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the simulation was how automatically right-wing authoritarians, placed in a room filled with people rather like themselves, still divided the world into small enclaves of ‘Us’ versus the global ‘Them’.” Bob Altmeyer’s conclusion to an experiment including dominating authoritarians [High RWAs] amongst a second group of authoritarian followers in “What Happens When Authoritarians Inherit the Earth? A Simulation”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003

The above being a small sampling from a rough draft for an article I've been working on for another publication in a free thought periodical.. The purpose of this article is to explore the origins of the dependent thinking, or faith-based mind that collectively reeks havoc around the globe. It is an exploration into the origins of the true believer’s [right wing] authoritarian personality through Hellenistic philosophy [Aristotle vs Plato] and behavioral science.

Anywho, thanks for the welcome....

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].

I can disagree theologically with Catholic theologians and not damage my credibility. That is why there can be schools of theological thought in Catholicism; for example, the Molinist, the Scotist, the Thomist, and the Ressourcement schools. But these are all Catholic positions. I cannot disagree with the Pope's infallible decrees or the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, or the like, but it doesn't quelch any ability to inquire into theological or philosophical truth at all.

*shrug* My point stands. You, as a catholic, cannot disagree with the positions put forth by authority figures within the church and continue to call yourself a catholic. And let's keep in mind that these positions, if all bound together in one volume, would probably be longer than the bible itself. An atheist, by contrast, need only take one position (lack of belief in a god) to be worthy of the term atheist and all its associated privileges.

This is what you and other theists forget when you interpret atheist (and scientific) disagreement as a sign of weakness. YOU are the ones who depend on collective thinking and militant thought control to acheive your version of truth. We do not, and feel that argument and disagreement brings us closer to a real truth much more valid, robust and enlightening than yours.

StMichael wrote:

I daresay my position is most certainly not a house of cards ready to crumble. Mine has been built where it should be: on the rock of Christ and in centuries of His Church's thinking tradition.

When you take a non-catholic position, you do lose credibility since, as you point out above, your base your entire belief structure on the teachings of christ. Leave the established chain of revelation that has supposedly grown from that foundation, and you, according to you, no longer have a valid basis for belief. I'm frankly surprised that you'd evoke the history of catholic catechism as a point in your favour. One need only see how many times the infallible word of god (as expressed by the pope) has changed and contradicted its earlier position to begin to doubt the reliability of the whole body of "knowledge".

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

The active, or political nihilist, would seek to physically destroy the cultural, social and political influence of diseased belief systems, or 'isms' not supported by fact. This of course could mean physically destroing their buildings, their organizational structure, and their leaders... For me personally, to destroy them would mean to 'render them harmless' to civilization...

As long as we're only destroying influence and belief systems, I'm cool.

Adnihilo wrote:

There you make a very relevant point Tilberian about the 'authoritarian personality' inherent to the "Homo Religiosus" sub species. The authoritarian personality is characterized as conventional, submissive to authority, and aggressive toward deviants and outsiders (Altemeyer, 1981).

Most freethinkers can easily recognize this RWA personality that shares similar characteristics or ‘traits’ with the ‘true believer’ from: excessive conformity; submissiveness to authority; intolerance; insecurity; superstition and; ridged, stereotyped thought patterns. All the preceeding characteristics are identified by German sociologist and philosopher, Theodor W. Adorno as traits of an Authoritarian Personality.

Members of large authoritarian groups, regardless if religious, political or fraternal, are to a large degree, externally directed. Their immense need for external direction drives them to join mass movements by the droves to follow a charismatic leader. As long as dependent minded followers believe, their leader can get away with anything.

A common hatred, enemy, or devil is essential to the success of both their leaders and their groups characterized by an ‘us versus them’ attitude of bigotry, and hate towards outsiders. Their internal dependence on external group thought and direction is a primary reason they’ve been so successful at imposing authoritarian rule throughout history using a few select faith-based leaders. The most extreme racist hate groups in America like the KKK, Aryan Nation and others, all have a Christian identity that supercedes their bigoted racial supremacy. Right wing political groups in America also have a primary Christian identity that supercedes their underlying right wing political goals.

True believers seem to almost always be raised in an authoritarian environments. They have typically been taught ‘what’ to think, rather than ‘how’ to think from birth. Instead of a philosophy based in reason to guide them, or show them the path, they rely on others, typically authoritarian figures, both alive and dead, to direct their thoughts and actions taken in life. Like all that suffer from deeper levels of psychosis, they refuse to acknowledge they even have a mental disorder where contact with reality has been completely lost or at best, highly distorted.

“High RWAs are not likely to come up with the answers to our global problems. They are far too ethnocentric. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the simulation was how automatically right-wing authoritarians, placed in a room filled with people rather like themselves, still divided the world into small enclaves of ‘Us’ versus the global ‘Them’.” Bob Altmeyer’s conclusion to an experiment including dominating authoritarians [High RWAs] amongst a second group of authoritarian followers in “What Happens When Authoritarians Inherit the Earth? A Simulation”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003

The above being a small sampling from a rough draft for an article I've been working on for another publication in a free thought periodical.. The purpose of this article is to explore the origins of the dependent thinking, or faith-based mind that collectively reeks havoc around the globe. It is an exploration into the origins of the true believer’s [right wing] authoritarian personality through Hellenistic philosophy [Aristotle vs Plato] and behavioral science.

Anywho, thanks for the welcome....

That's some pretty cool shit you've laid down there. I can see that you've been doing your homework. Look foward to reading your stuff on these boards.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

*shrug* My point stands. You, as a catholic, cannot disagree with the positions put forth by authority figures within the church and continue to call yourself a catholic. And let's keep in mind that these positions, if all bound together in one volume, would probably be longer than the bible itself. An atheist, by contrast, need only take one position (lack of belief in a god) to be worthy of the term atheist and all its associated privileges.

I could easily say the same thing on my end. A Catholic only need accept what the Church teaches to call himself Catholic. I can still have argument on a particular theological position or develop doctrine in an area. This is basic to Catholicism. I also don't know what you mean by "authority figures" as I clearly can disagree with authority figures in the Catholic Church and still be Catholic. I, of course, cannot disagree with what the Church teaches in the infallible decrees of the Popes or the ecumenical councils, or in its tradition, but this is not an impediment to free thought anymore than your inability to disagree with what previous mathematicians have established as true impairs your ability to do math.

Quote:

We do not, and feel that argument and disagreement brings us closer to a real truth much more valid, robust and enlightening than yours.

One cannot argue or disagree on truth. We disagree and argue over points that can be disputed. It makes no progress at all to dispute a point that has been proven to be true. Again, if we were constantly arguing to reprove all of Euclid's theorems, we wouldn't go anywhere in mathematics. It is not limiting to accept previous positions as true - in fact, we build on what we learn as true and investigate the mysteries of faith further.

Quote:

When you take a non-catholic position, you do lose credibility since, as you point out above, your base your entire belief structure on the teachings of christ.

As you would lose credibility if you began to take a Catholic position. No unique reason this applies only to me and not to yourself.

Quote:

I'm frankly surprised that you'd evoke the history of catholic catechism as a point in your favour. One need only see how many times the infallible word of god (as expressed by the pope) has changed and contradicted its earlier position to begin to doubt the reliability of the whole body of "knowledge".

I could easily say the same thing on my end. A Catholic only need accept what the Church teaches to call himself Catholic. I can still have argument on a particular theological position or develop doctrine in an area. This is basic to Catholicism. I also don't know what you mean by "authority figures" as I clearly can disagree with authority figures in the Catholic Church and still be Catholic. I, of course, cannot disagree with what the Church teaches in the infallible decrees of the Popes or the ecumenical councils, or in its tradition, but this is not an impediment to free thought anymore than your inability to disagree with what previous mathematicians have established as true impairs your ability to do math.

You just said it again! You can't disagree with the Pope or your ecumenical councils or you lose the right to call yourself a catholic. This state of affairs simply doesn't apply for an atheist. An atheist can declare that he doesn't believe in math, if he wants to, and that has no bearing on his status as an atheist or his credibility in calling himself one (though his overall credibility might be rather suspect). The theist buys into a huge structure of (supposedly) fixed, revealed positions and can't depart from the least of them without being cast out by their sect. Scientific knowledge is not like this. ANY tenet of science is open to question and at least theoretically able to be tested by anyone.

Thus the basic difference in mindset. To the theist, disagreement is weakness. To the atheist, it is strength.

StMichael wrote:

One cannot argue or disagree on truth. We disagree and argue over points that can be disputed. It makes no progress at all to dispute a point that has been proven to be true. Again, if we were constantly arguing to reprove all of Euclid's theorems, we wouldn't go anywhere in mathematics. It is not limiting to accept previous positions as true - in fact, we build on what we learn as true and investigate the mysteries of faith further.

There you go again. The authoritarian assumption that once "truth" has been established (arbitrarily, buy a bunch of old white guys in Rome) it is no longer open to debate. This is a HIGHLY limiting mode of thought, IMO.

I can test Euclid's theorems any time I want, and no mathematician will mock me for not taking them for granted. On the other hand, question the Pope and watch the shit hit the fan. Doesn't it strike you that one group is somewhat more confident about its knowledge?

StMichael wrote:

As you would lose credibility if you began to take a Catholic position. No unique reason this applies only to me and not to yourself.

Not at all. I could embrace every single catholic position except belief in god and retain my atheist credentials intact.

StMichael wrote:

I'm frankly surprised that you'd evoke the history of catholic catechism as a point in your favour. One need only see how many times the infallible word of god (as expressed by the pope) has changed and contradicted its earlier position to begin to doubt the reliability of the whole body of "knowledge".

Except that it has never done so.

Heliocentricism. To name just the first reversal of a catholic position that comes to mind.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

First, I doubt that you could accept "all Catholic positions except belief in God" and remain an atheist, as all Catholic positions assume this fact.

Second, to accept a body of truth does not impair rational thought at all. I accept previously demonstrated mathematical truths because they have been adequately demonstrated. The truths of the Catholic faith have been similarly established. However, in neither of these instances does such acceptance destroy rational thought.

I quote a particular letter that was published in "This Rock" magazine which, to my knowledge, contains the best description of why Galileo was punished by the Church:

"The Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Galileo in 1616, under Pope Paul V, and again in 1633 under Pope Urban VIII. Contrary to modern belief, the excommunication was unrelated to Galileo’s theory that the earth moved around the sun, a discovery made in 1543 by a Catholic priest from Poland named Copernicus. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa held this same view, and neither he nor Fr. Copernicus encountered any opposition from the Holy See. The Holy See does not comment on theories of science unless they are presented as scientific truths that contradict revealed truth, in which case these scientific theories become theological pronouncements.

Mr. Milan writes, "After careful study of the matter and of Galileo’s evidence, Cardinal [Robert] Bellarmine . . . concluded that Galileo did not contradict Scripture." This assertion must be qualified by the following passage from letter the Cardinal wrote to a Mr. Foscarini, a close friend of Galileo: "There would be no objection on the part of the Congregation to putting forward the system of Copernicus as the best explanation of the celestial phenomena provided no reference was made to the apparent conflict with the Bible" (emphasis added).

The Congregation took issue not with the movement of the celestial bodies around the sun but with Galileo’s statement that the sun did not move. Why is that? The key is in the book of Joshua: "Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day" (Josh. 10:12–14, emphasis added).

If the sun does not move, as Galileo affirmed, how could the Lord have commanded it to stand still? The Church had not made an infallible pronouncement on the proper interpretation of these verses. Galileo, on the other hand, was making one: The sun does not move, meaning either Scripture is in error or the Church has to infallibly declare that the meaning of these verses is not literal.

The Church, to protect the faithful and to call Galileo to repentance, issued her condemnation. Pope John Paul II has removed the bull of excommunication against Galileo in part because the astronomer’s teaching no longer constitutes a danger to the faithful (just as Paul’s stern warning against circumcision in Galatians 5:2–4 was binding for his time but is not binding today)" (Mouawad, Naji, This Rock, Vol. 11, No. 2, Feb. 2000).